[arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Bill Sandiford
<bill at telnetcommunications.com> wrote:
>> Given that addresses from these per-node pools are
>> dynamically allocated to subscribers, is it possible for
>> the cable company to reprovision
>> the address space from the ISP's other underutilized nodes
>> as needed?  (This is what is expected from all other ISPs in
>> similar situations under the present policy.)
>
> Good question.  Unfortunately the answer is no.  In most
> cases the allocations on the other underutilized nodes is
> already a /29, so reprovisioning those other nodes to a /30
> isn't practical.  To my knowledge the cable companies
> require all nodes to be numbered.

Hi Bill,

So the nutshell of this problem is:

1. The cable company has 1000 or so nodes to which Internet access
customers connect.

2. The competitive ISP is required by the _cable company_ to initially
provision all 1000 nodes with IP address pools regardless of whether
they then have or later acquire customers connected to each node.

3. Although node pools could, technically, be provisioned upon
acquisition of the ISP's first customer at that node, the cable
company declines to permit it.

4. Most nodes are still empty of customers when the ISP runs out of
its initial allocation, leaving it very underutilized per ARIN
standards.


So, reading between the lines, here's what I see:

The cable companies like competition the way the ILECs like CLECs. So,
they tricked the CRTC into allowing a poison pill that they knew would
run the competitive ISP afoul of ARIN IP addressing policy. ARIN is
now asked to provide relief by altering its policies to moot the
CRTC-level poison pill.


Is that about the size of it?


What about the layer 2 tunnelling described in John's links? Is the
cable company required to provide both methods, the layer 2 tunnelling
too? That doesn't require them to assign addresses to the cable
company, right? What's the down side when an ISP elects to use the
L2tunnelling method instead of the managed router method?

Thanks,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004